Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nemokara (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 23 April 2011 (→‎Image notability question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. August 2002 – March 2003
  2. April 2003 – April 2003 (1)
  3. April 2003 – April 2003 (2)
  4. April 2003 – April 2003 (3)
  5. May 2003 – December 2003
  6. January 2004 – July 2004
  7. July 2004 – August 2006
  8. September 2006 – December 2006
  9. January 2007 – September 2007
  10. October 2007 – December 2007
  11. January 2008 – January 2009
  12. February 2009 –
  13. 2010 –

Galleries

I have re-jigged WP:IG to clarify what was the clear intention of the lengthy discussions two years ago (also here) that led to the present wording, which has been pretty stable since then. The "rule of Thumb" only makes sense in terms of the old-style gallery-articles, not the one or two or more rows that are now well-accepted in articles on visual subjects. The question arose at Talk:William_Hogarth#fix_the_clutter. I also recently added "inappropriate" to the wording on Template:Cleanup-gallery, which now reads: "This section looks like an inappropriate image gallery. Wikipedia policy discourages galleries of random images of the article subject; please improve or remove the section accordingly, moving freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons if not already hosted there." A recent check on a sample of articles (mostly on art) with this template showed over 50% that were imo fine, though also many that weren't. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not the "clear intention" of the discussion two years ago. While there may be exceptions for visual arts, lets discuss, but not rewrite history. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, the William_Hogarth discussion suggests that a clarification is needed for visual arts, as Johnbod suggests. In such cases, the word "gallery" might actually be quite appropriate. Any suggestions for wording? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Municipal police department photo

I know U.S. federal government photos are usually free. What about a photo by a city police department, such as this, in an article about the living individual shown? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a little late in response, but the answer is generally no. Some states have laws which place state works in the public domain but would not apply to municipal works (or contractors, etc.). There should be templates for individual states which have PD laws. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to reword Rule of thumb 9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to retain the current wording but link the phrase "simply to bring attention to an article" to the Sensationalism article in order to provide a context to "Shocking or explicit".

Current rule: "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article."
Considering that the above rule is rather vague and it is not clear in what situation it would actually apply (other than obvious vandalism), I would like to replace it with the following:
"Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used in inappropriate contexts."
In other words, don't use SuicideGirls to illustrate girl or a photo of a severed head to illustrate head. Sexual or graphic images are fine in articles related to those topics, per WP:NOTCENSORED, but shouldn't be used indiscriminately to illustrate other subjects. This wording should make the intention and applicability of the rule more clear. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That strikes me as less vague but more broad. I'm not sure it is an improvement and I'm not sure the current rule results in us using a severed head to illustrate Head nor that the proposed rule would alone serve to prevent such an image from being used. Protonk (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The wording is fine as is, "bring attention to an article" is more direct in its meaning - "inappropriate" is not as it is too wide of an interpretation. Even in your suggestion I would say that using a model from SuicideGirls to show a "girl" is not at all "inappropriate" as the models are clearly females. However using an image such as this to illustrate Virginity would clearly be "used simply to bring attention to an article", and, yes, it would be seen by most as "inappropriate", but that is not that same as combining both an image *and* a name - using a person to illustrate Asshole would also be seen as "used simply to bring attention to an article", but, depending on who the person was, may not been seen as "inappropriate." Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using an explicitly sexualized image (SuicideGirls) would most certainly be inappropriate to illustrate a general topic like girl, as would the other examples you cite. And I don't think an editor would do this to "bring attention to an article". They would do this because they don't care about exercising editorial judgement for audiences broader than 20-year-old heterosexual males. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from the telepathy needed to infer that motivation, that doesn't seem like a problem that needs to be resolved by editing the image use policy. Normal editing should allow people to discuss images and reach a consensus to remove obviously inappropriate images for an article. If normal editing is insufficient than maybe dispute resolution can be tried or maybe the image isn't obviously inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't need telepathy to decide appropriateness, but you would need telepathy to know if someone was trying to "bring attention to an article". And you can't very well reach consensus without any useful guidelines to point to, especially when we have editors arguing in all seriousness that pornography (SuicideGirls) is appropriate for illustrating the article girl. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You need telepathy to determine " they don't care about exercising editorial judgement for audiences broader than 20-year-old heterosexual males". Protonk (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not proposing that that be part of the Rule. Please refer to my initial post. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fine. I agree that the current wording is too vague. I just don't know how much the wording actually matters in practice (especially if we are trying to use the policy to effect change) and I don't know how I feel about just using the word "inappropriate". Protonk (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmm, I'm open to suggestions. I'm afraid anything more specific would be seen as instruction creep. The nice thing about "inappropriate" is that it is open to case-by-case debate (as you suggest earlier in the thread). Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll give it some thought. I don't have any good suggestions off the top of my head. But I mean what I said about effectiveness. The overriding "policy" is always WP:COMMON (not really a policy, hence the scare quotes). Don't put pictures of dicks on articles that aren't really related to dicks, etc. If people aren't using their heads then I don't think rewording the image policy will change that too much--everything can be wikilawyered. But I do agree that the current wording kinda sucks. I think it was originally meant to match WP:NOTCENSORED but didn't really get it right. Heh. In fact WP:NOT basically says "don't include stuff that isn't appropriate for the article". >.> Protonk (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ah, if only common sense were a universal trait of Wikipedia editors! :) Regarding WP:NOTCENSORED, I think my proposed wording actually matches the WP:NOTCENSORED policy about as closely as you can get: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well we kinda have to build rules around the presence of common sense otherwise we would end up with a bigger rats' nest of provisos and caveats. Would it be possible just to link to CENSORED with a bit about appropriateness for a given article? Also...and this is really nitpicky, but I think "appropriate" is a better word than inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We actually need more than NOTCENSORED as an editorial policy. For example, a year or so ago the community wasted umpteen kilobytes on whether it was "appropriate" to have the goatse image in the goatse article. One lot said, "Of course it is appropriate: the article is about the goatse image; how could the goatse image not be encyclopedically relevant and 'appropriate'?" The other lot said, "Of course it's not appropriate. It's a shock image, and it will make readers throw up." What we should have done is look at reliable sources: Do any reliable sources plonk the goatse image on their pages when they discuss it? Very quick answer: No. And if reliable sources don't do it, why should we? We present a link under External links, and if people still want to see it, after having read the article (which many actually may not bother to do if the image is there), then they can follow that link. --JN466 01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images like these are actually not suitable for girl. Really. I think we are doing fine with the illustrations we currently have in that article. ;) --JN466 23:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • "that pornography" is "exactly" what I mean with "inappropriate." I don't see a nude model as being "pornography." I am sure File:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg is seen by some as "inappropriate" as well because it appears to be a very young "girl" in a modeling pose. Some might say she is a bit of a Lolita. But that is more of an opinion that can not truly be a policy. It is sometimes often obvious when a source is meant to "bring attention to an article" - ever watch reality TV? Or read gossip rags? The context of "inappropriate" is broad and varied - many feel The Biggest Loser is "inappropriate", while far more seem to not feel that given the success of the show. Want to draw attention to something? Than you "exploit" something - you use "sensationalism". Ever hear of the New York Post? (Headlines such as these were commonplace) How about The Sun? (typical front page) I take the line in question to be akin to that. An article whose title is "Naked girls!" and is an article about File:HaremPool.jpg or File:Danae painting.jpg is clearly meant to "bring attention to an article". Likewise an article entitled "pornography" which was an article about File:Bouguereau first kiss.jpg would be the same. That is what I meant about a title and an image that went hand in hand. For image use the same is true in the *context* of what this says - "Shocking or explicit pictures". In that context I, personally, don't feel SuicideGirls is either of those. Coprophagia on the other hand, if it used this image I would consider both - even if it isn't what is really gong one. (Again - a title *with* an image very much sets context many times). As Protonk has tried to explain "Normal editing should allow people to discuss images and reach a consensus to remove obviously inappropriate images for an article." Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So sites where you pay money to see young naked people in sexually alluring poses aren't "porn sites"? What would you prefer that we call them? "Nudity appreciation sites"? Come on. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SuicideGirls is definitely more than just nudity. It's obviously designed to be sexually alluring and gratifying and that's why people pay money for it, not for the compelling prose! If you think I'm proposing this wording change because I'm a "prude" and I want to remove all nudity from Wikipedia, you are completely wrong and have violated WP:AGF. I just think the current wording sucks and it should reflect our existing policies instead. Have you actually read WP:NOTCENSORED? It uses the word "appropriate", I didn't just make it up to suggest here so that I could go on a nudity deleting rampage. Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may surprise you but I have real most of the polices and guidelines that deal with files and copyright here at Wikipedia. My "work" here is akin to real world work where I deal with such matters. Real world =/= Wikiworld however and I spend a lot of time here trying to explain that to people as well. As I had suggested below Wikipedia is *not* an endeavor into exploitation films or Yellow Journalism, and that is is the context of the wording. "Inappropriate" is part of that, however is not *only* that. Your use of a modeling site that one must pay to use as an example of "inappropriate" is not a good one, and based on further discussion it opens up a lot of like discussions. A pay site =/= inappropriate for example. "sexually alluring and gratifying and that's why people pay money for it" is a subjective view, some people find image of feet "sexually alluring and gratifying" but that does not mean every image of a foot is "inappropriate." Some people find eating shit "sexually alluring and gratifying" but that does not mean Coprophagia is "inappropriate", even if it were on a website where one had to pay for it. Sexual fetishism is an article where images could be used to illustrate it and it would be hard to argue, in the context of Wikipedia not being censored, how an image that related to that topic would be "shocking" or "explicit" in the *context* of the subject, but certainly anyone could argue that such image were "inappropriate" on their own. I am going to respond more way down below as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. As an additional point, consider that all our basic content policies -- WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV -- are based on the premise that we should model our textual content on reliable sources. Images are article content, too, and the same principles should apply. While we usually substitute our own images for copyright and other reasons, the general style of our illustrations should mimic that of the illustrations commonly used in reliable sources covering the topic. --JN466 22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could use those to illustrate nightmare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no; the rule of thumb concerns surprise, content deals with sexual or other inappropriate subtexts. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If something has an inappropriate (sexual or other) subtext wouldn't that cause surprise? Kaldari (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the rule of thumb is a restatement of the general principle that images should illustrate the subject of the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note - I got a chuckle out of this because of this thread: Eddie Cibrian's ex, Brandi Glanville, slams LeAnn Rimes on Twitter: Singer is 'highly inappropriate. I don't see the words "shocking or explicit" mentioned at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

100MB??? is that true???

According to rules:

Upload a high-resolution version of your image whenever possible (unless the image is being used under fair use; see Fair use images for details), and use the automatic thumbnailing option of the Wikipedia image markup to scale down the image. MediaWiki accepts images up to 100 MB in size. Do not scale down the image yourself, as scaled-down images may be of limited use in the future. Is that true if a Wikipedia's server can conatin a picture file in 100MB??? or maybe just 100KB??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpson H (talk • contribs) 00:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the server can handle files that large (with some searching I found File:1 Wild Turkey.jpg for example that's, 99Mb), but it's not true that you can necessarily just use the automatic thumbnailing option on that large files. It works ok if they are JPG files, but PNG files (and anything that result in a PNG thumbnail) is limited to 12.5 million pixels (something about those files types having to be loaded entirely into RAM to resize, while JPG files can be "streamed" though the processor in smaller chunks). You can still upload those files, but the system can't create automatic thumbnails for them (see File:Lexington original configuration edited.gif for example, only 7Mb, but too many pixels to thumbnail). --Sherool (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coin images

I'm a little uncomfortable with a tag that has been placed on an image I uploaded:File:Na1guilderobverse.png.

I understand the low resolution argument (and "specimen" watermarking) when applied to bills. Makes perfect sense to me. I'm not sure how well it applies to coins, though. Certainly we aren't suggesting that people are going to counterfeit coins based on scans of my pocket change, are we? Or that the amount of infringement a picture of a coin produces is related to the resolution of the picture?—Kww(talk) 00:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's straight up seeking to minimize the use of non-free image, which includes using the lowest-resolution image possible that still carries the necessary meaning for the work. That image, at half size (1/4th as large) would be sufficient for what it is illustrating. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still think it's a misplaced concern, given the media difference: a picture doesn't compete with an object, and the resolution is immaterial. Reduced it anyway.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems moot since the image was reduced, but I think that the reduced image is a silly policy where the image itself can't compete with the object in question. Protonk (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really moot, and merits further discussion. This wasn't the only high-resolution picture of a physical object on Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 06:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well my stance is that reducing the image size serves two purposes, both valuable. The first is to blunt claims of competition for publishers of the original content. Take Tennis Girl or File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg as two examples of reduction for this purpose. The second purpose is to prompt free image use. The chain of thinking goes if we do not restrict (arbitrarily in some cases) the quality of non-free images then they will crowd out free images and downstream use will be hurt. I'm not mentioning these two to remediate, just to establish a starting point for discussion. I feel that the policy as it stands conflates both the necessity and the consequence of both reasons. Rather than have a policy which requires reduced resolution images for certain kinds of photos (say press or wire photos, just to pick an easy and narrow example) and somewhat higher resolution on others, we tend to slap non-free reduce on everything. A photo of a bill or coin cannot stand in or compete for the original (or, more precisely, a given photo on wikipedia of a coin cannot really compete with another photo of the same coin) and a free image literally cannot be taken of the coin. Likewise photos of web-pages run into this very same issue. We give readers a 400x200 image of a web page for no particularly good reason. When someone uploads a higher resolution image because the lower resolution one looks like shit (pardon the language, but it does), we tend to slap some tag on their page and treat them like a copyright criminal. It doesn't make any sense. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. A low-resolution restriction makes a lot of sense when we are reproducing an image: in a very real sense, our image competes with other sources for the image. Once we have an image of something that isn't, in itself, an image, the resolution doesn't matter. A good picture of a coin interferes with the rights of a mint to precisely the same extent that a poor image does. We can argue about what the nature of that interference is, but it isn't resolution sensitive.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFUR images question

If an image being used under NFUR rules was to be hidden by use of <!-- -->, would it then be liable to deletion as an orphan? Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, though I don't know if the bot (there is still a bot, right) will read commented sections when considering image links. But if I were scanning manually unless the image was in the infobox I would be shocked if I saw a commented out image before tagging one as an orphan. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source question

This image of Martin De Leon is on Wikimedia Commons. And it is currently in use on the German Wikipedia. It has no source information. My question: With no source information, should I refrain from using this image? Maile66 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy language

I wonder if anyone would object to changing IUP's "source" language to something that can't be confused with "source" as used by WP:Verifiability and other major content policies? Perhaps "origin" would be an adequate substitute. For example, under ==Requirements==, we could say "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source origin)..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there NEVER explanations in Wikipedia articles (about Wikipedia Image-use) on How to Actually Determine If an Image is Copyrighted Or NOT?!!

Why doesn't this article, for example, tell you HOW to find out if an image is copyrighted or not? Or if an image is fair-use or free? Or if an image is free or non-copyrighted? These pages NEVER tell you that. It's maddening.

OK-- so now I know what I can and can't use-- but HOW do I tell whether or not an Internet image is copyrighted, or has any other designation or is just free.

And WHY doesn't this, or any other Wikipedia image article, just spell this out clearly in an easy-to find manner?

Telemachus.forward (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no clear explanation of whether or not an image is fair use. Sorry, but it's complicated. :/ In terms of determining if an image is under copyright, that's a bit complicated, too. It depends on when it was first published, where it was first published, and by whom. If you have a specific question and aren't sure, you can ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It always more easier to start from the assumption that any image on the web is copyrighted (eg we treat is as non-free) and set out to find if it actually is in the public domain or licensed appropriately for free reuse. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses!

Masem, how do you know if an image is in the Public domain?

Telemachus.forward (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to figure out if the text on a website is copyrighted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To tell if something is public domain, it may have been released to the public domain via a declaration, it may be created in the public domain, eg US government, or it may be too simple for copyright, or it may be copyright expired. To tell if copyright has expired you have to know which country it was published in, when it was, who the author was, and may-be when they died. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this might be an awful answer, but here it is. It's immensely complicated, and the best thing to do if you don't know is ask. There exists a few experts in copyright (at least experts at copyright as related to Wikipedia) that can be called upon. Moonriddengirl happens to be one of them, I'm sure she can provide links to the standard outlets for copyright questions if she sees this. There are also specialists in specific areas, I consider myself at least intermediate in my knowledge as it relates to sounds and images. Outside of going to law school, the only real way to pick up the know how is by watching others, reading up on different discussions and policy pages, and, as I said, asking when you need to. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple rule of thumb is: if you didn't make it yourself, it's probably not free. The one usual exception is that if it's clearly quite old it might be free (and you can check into that). All other exceptions are rare. And as for fair use, if it's not free, a good rule of thumb is: don't use it. (Granted, there are exceptions. But it's much easier, and usually correct (some would say always correct), to simply forgo using fair use images.) Yes, these rules of thumb are kind of draconian, but certainly simplify life. I'm not saying anyone else should follow them, but if you don't, yes you will expect to have to do some detective work. Herostratus (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A basic way for starters is to check this page. If an image is free, it will be free for a certain reason, and that page lists a number of tags of such reasons. So, check if the image you are interested in using can use one of those tags, or not. You don't need to check them all, usually you will check the general ones, or the ones from the source country. The usual info about the image that you will need are the author, the year of death if dead, and the publication MBelgrano (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image notability question

Can someone clarify if WP has a policy about image notability. I've noticed many articles which contain images of questionable usefulness. No problems about copyright/fair use, etc. but they make me think "was this really necessary in addition to the written description?"

I know adding images as a general practice is encouraged, but I would think there would be some guidelines, if not an out-and-out rule stating what determines when an image is appropriate. It puzzles me that notability would be so strictly enforced for text, but not for images. IMO an image should add something significant to the reader's comprehension about the subject. In other words, what makes one topic notable enough to merit multiple images while other articles of similar length/quality/notability have none? Perhaps it's the case that ALL articles need many images but the community just hasn't caught up yet? Or perhaps certain topics have few fair-use images that can be used?

Anyway, if such a policy exists, I can't find it. If it doesn't, can someone explain why not? Nemokara (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- So ... no?Nemokara (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a flow-chart.

Someone please make a simple to follow flowchart for how to find out if an image is "fair use" or not. I'd like to use http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52300000/jpg/_52300851_011770030-1.jpg to illustrate a pertinent article about salafi jihadism. The image has a watermark-ish little "AP" thing down in the corner, obviously put there by the people who sold BBCnews the image so that people would know where the image came from. To me, that means the image is now out on the internet where anyone can just right-click and "Save As" and then re-use it. Would presumably be nice to leave the "AP" mark in there so they would get credit for being a company that's good for sourcing images, i.e. essentially doing their advertising FOR THEM and increasing their brand awareness. I really don't see how this is not "fair use" as long as whoever is re-using it doesn't profit from doing so or seek to re-sell it and in fact helps them advertise their services - but I have a sneaky suspicion that other people don't share my opinion and will tell me I'm flat out wrong, so I won't bother making a bold edit to the page I want to put the image on. Which kind of stifles the use of images on wikipedia. Someone explain this?Pär Larsson (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"AP" is likely Associated Press. This means this is a press agency photo. Their business besides wire news stories is to sell these photos to others. While you can use it for "fair use", Wikipedia has a stronger standard of "non-free content", which means that when we are disrupting commercial opportunities, we cannot use such photos unless they are the subject of critical commentary and discussion. Even if the AP thing wasn't there, you're getting the image from the BBC and so without other evidence would make it a press agency photo. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy&oldid=425522544"